MBTI

The MBTI tests are broken down into four dichotomies. When I take the test I score INFJ, however when I read the functions and descriptions Ni is closer to Ne. Just exactly what is going on here?

-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx

I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

I feel like MBTI may be vague enough such that people can project a lot of things onto it
To me, INFP sounds like EII...
But to be fair, there’s noticeable differences between MBTI-socionics combinations, I think. Say between an INFJ-IEI and an INFP-IEI. It’s not something I have a solid grasp of yet so I can’t describe it in detail quite yet.

Jung's type by 4 dichotomies. The similar tests are used in Socionics and by Jungians.

> When I take the test I score INFJ, however when I read the functions and descriptions Ni is closer to Ne.

Tests have no 100% accuracy. For example, in official typing after MBTI you get an interview where in ~30% of cases you get another type. The similar is in Socionics - multiple methods are used in common for a typing.
A MBTI uses only dichotomies and does not use functions so problems in functions' descriptions is a separate problem.
Functions of Jung's types are described by MBT followers for introverts wrongly and in controversion to Jung. It's not other types in MBT and they claim to use Jung's types - it's the mistake and evident one. Why it's still there after many years is interesting question. Partly because, as the main accent in types descriptions (and even in IR) is made on dichotomies and the most people who did MBTI typing did not read Jung, so this misleading stays as lesser seen.
The descriptions of functions themselves should be close to Jung's texts, but there can be anything and depend on the concrete author. They do not use much functions in the practice, so the corectness of those descriptions mb low and lesser noticable for them. Partly, the mistakes and worse descriptions may be because Jung could to make mistakes in expanded functions descriptions or he could be understood incorrectly. Jung's texts is a mess, really - the flood of the thoughts and associations, too much of Ni and the lack of Ti. To keep the sense, 90% of his "Psychological types" mb removed and the rest rewritten more clear - the reason why sometimes was published only X chapter from the whole book.

The fundamental problem with MBTI tests is that they don't test the functions but then associate functions to the dichotomy result. So, while online sources say that INFJs have NiFeTiSe valued, there's isn't substantial reason to associate that set of cognitive functions to the INFJ type. The reason why it's done is because in MBTI, "J" traits are associated with Je functions; however, they can easily be associated with Ji functions as well (which MBTI conveniently ignores), which is why the association is problematic.

Are you saying that the Ni definition in MBTI is close to the Ne definition in socionics? The only place I would agree with that is in the idea that Ni is a "big picture" function whereas that's usually associated with Ne in socionics. I think that Ni is big picture in the sense that it zooms out to see the full flow of events over time; however, Ne is big picture in that it makes nonlinear, intuitive connections in fundamental areas of thought. Besides that, the Ni description in MBTI and socionics are pretty similar - both have to deal with time, vision, patterns, memory, and foresight. Socionics says that Ni is more detail oriented and precise (which I agree with) whereas MBTI does not. This is because MBTI has an intuitive bias whereby anything detail oriented is automatically deemed "sensory", even though that distinction is very faulty.

I think the objective is not to know type and stuff that relates to it. Simply just to point out the differences in thinking. That is mainly it. It is a tool to make money. There are so called certified people doing it. If my memory serves correctly they take 30 $/person and there are usually lots of people in an event. If they were up to taking socionics route [and that would take much more time than quick and dirty MBTI introduction] they would have to pay those people some money or make actual incentive for it.

Jung's type by 4 dichotomies. The similar tests are used in Socionics and by Jungians.

> When I take the test I score INFJ, however when I read the functions and descriptions Ni is closer to Ne.

Tests have no 100% accuracy. For example, in official typing after MBTI you get an interview where in ~30% of cases you get another type. The similar is in Socionics - multiple methods are used in common for a typing.
A MBTI uses only dichotomies and does not use functions so problems in functions' descriptions is a separate problem.
Functions of Jung's types are described by MBT followers for introverts wrongly and in controversion to Jung. It's not other types in MBT and they claim to use Jung's types - it's the mistake and evident one. Why it's still there after many years is interesting question. Partly because, as the main accent in types descriptions (and even in IR) is made on dichotomies and the most people who did MBTI typing did not read Jung, so this misleading stays as lesser seen.
The descriptions of functions themselves should be close to Jung's texts, but there can be anything and depend on the concrete author. They do not use much functions in the practice, so the corectness of those descriptions mb low and lesser noticable for them. Partly, the mistakes and worse descriptions may be because Jung could to make mistakes in expanded functions descriptions or he could be understood incorrectly. Jung's texts is a mess, really - the flood of the thoughts and associations, too much of Ni and the lack of Ti. To keep the sense, 90% of his "Psychological types" mb removed and the rest rewritten more clear - the reason why sometimes was published only X chapter from the whole book.

It's all was discussed on this forum before. For several times.

Stop invoking the name of Jung in vain. His writings are not that hard to understand.

He would probably not care for socionics anymore than he would MBTI if he had a chance to properly review either system. You are constantly telling people here that if they type MBTI INFP then they are IEI. I don't see you telling those who get INFJ that they are EII though.

Just by most behavioral descriptions an INFP/J could be EII or IEI or neither. That goes for tests too. People think they are more this or that at any given time. Base function is most important. If you can find that the rest is pretty easy to sort. Reading comprehension skills are your friend so people should work on those. I agree the official MBTI test is evaluated by those using their subjective understanding of types and functions if that is what you mean. They are often wrong according to those who have been typed at work, or school, only to look into it further and find the type they were given did not make sense on further study.

In my teens I was still figuring this out and thankfully I had the benefit of Jung and other people's writings to work it out for myself. You are doing no one any favors telling them they are or aren't a certain type especially when they don't want it. That is not giving Te. That is forcing your opinion.

About that other thing we talked about... I am waiting for right moment which wasn't on that day. You are learning patience though, right?

“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

I feel like MBTI may be vague enough such that people can project a lot of things onto it
To me, INFP sounds like EII...
But to be fair, there’s noticeable differences between MBTI-socionics combinations, I think. Say between an INFJ-IEI and an INFP-IEI. It’s not something I have a solid grasp of yet so I can’t describe it in detail quite yet.

It’s not as vague as you may think. My mother in law is a retired corporate organizer and she utilized mbti for 20 years as a part of her profession. She was staying with me when I had baby and when we had a chance to speak she typed me using the system she utalized and again she concluded with INFJ

-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx

I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

Stop invoking the name of Jung in vain. His writings are not that hard to understand.

His texts are deep, being full of a water.

> You are constantly telling people here that if they type MBTI INFP then they are IEI. I don't see you telling those who get INFJ that they are EII though.

The example with a single type is enough. The both notations for all types exist in my types examples lists.

> Just by most behavioral descriptions an INFP/J could be EII or IEI or neither

It's the problem of those decriptions, as by Jung there is no multi-value.

> That goes for tests too.

It was hard to understand E/I in me (only this dichotomy), while as lesser clear for others mb J/P. It needs a statistics to show that J/P more often gives significantly closer than other dichotomies to middle values to assume it lesser clear for the most people. Mb there was such research.

> I agree the official MBTI test is evaluated by those using their subjective understanding of types and functions if that is what you mean.

It uses the same dichotomies as Socionics and Jungians' test I saw. It's correct from theory point.

> They are often wrong according to those who have been typed at work, or school, only to look into it further and find the type they were given did not make sense on further study.

It's not the problem of the theory used in MBTI. Socionics has a lot of mistypings too, even with using better and more of typing methods. I'm sure on own example, that without self-typing by IR it's doubtful to trust to a version of your type, - I could not understand clearly E/I and values in me directly.

> You are doing no one any favors telling them they are or aren't a certain type

I say the truth. This rises the chance to understand correctly those types and take lesser seriously those people as types examples. People will think more what helps to understand correctly or mb will doubt more what will reduce the chance on misleadings. Also many ones are inexperienced noobs, unlike me - some of them may be able to understand this difference.

> About that other thing we talked about... I am waiting for right moment which wasn't on that day. You are learning patience though, right?

I'm learning to guess myself. But anyway it stays useful to see where my results match with others. Also in this region your skills are higher. And wider, - I have no so good imagination to feel the sense of the cards, while they may to have different meanings. To use Ni alike this I'd need to train a lot.

http://cognitivetype.com/64-subtypes/
WHOAAA I love this site
I was looking for the PoLR mode info I had found on there a while back, but stumbled upon these subtypes instead. Haven't looked into them one by one yet but thought worth sharing.

http://cognitivetype.com/64-subtypes/
WHOAAA I love this site
I was looking for the PoLR mode info I had found on there a while back, but stumbled upon these subtypes instead. Haven't looked into them one by one yet but thought worth sharing.

I like that site, too. I think what they’re doing is really interesting. Nice to see someone else that likes it on here. A lot of people seem to be hypercritical about it. Have you had them try to type you or have thought about it? I did, because I wanted to see where they’d place me. lol. But yeah, I think it’s pretty neat stuff....

I like that site, too. I think what they’re doing is really interesting. Nice to see someone else that likes it on here. A lot of people seem to be hypercritical about it. Have you had them try to type you or have thought about it? I did, because I wanted to see where they’d place me. lol. But yeah, I think it’s pretty neat stuff....

No I have not had them type me...I will look into how to contact them.